Gov’t rejects any notion of illegal spending -remains resolute all gov’t spending for 2014 done in accordance with constitution

ACTING Chief Justice Ian Chang yesterday granted leave for Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, to respond, via affidavit, to a legal challenge advanced by Opposition Leader, Brigadier (rtd) David Granger, within seven days.

Attorney-General Anil Nandlall and Senior Counsel, Mr. Aston Chase, in discussion shortly after the hearing in the Chief Justice Chambers

Through the challenge, made via an affidavit filed last Thursday, Granger is calling for a Conservatory Order to stay all spending or any further spending by Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, or any other Government minister, on programmes disapproved or not authorised by the National Assembly until the hearing and determination of the matter.
Chang also granted leave to one member of Granger’s legal team, Attorney-At-Law Basil Williams, to subsequently respond to Nandlall within five days, if the need arises.
According to Granger’s application, in which he is listed as the plaintiff, there is also a call for the courts to pronounce on the constitutionality of the combined Opposition’s disapproval of sums in the 2014 Budget, as well as a declaration on the restoration of those monies by the Finance Minister.
Budget 2014 saw the slashing of $37.5B from the allocations of $220B by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC).
The Finance Minister, at the time, noted that the Government would rely on the final ruling of Acting Chief Justice regarding budget cuts and subsequently restored the sums slashed, via a financial paper valued $4.6B.
The Attorney-General appeared before the Chief Justice, along with Attorneys-at-Law, Adrian Smith and Sasha Mahadeo, given that he was listed as a defendant in the matter.

Attorneys at Law Basil Williams and Llewelyn John, attorneys for the Leader of the Opposition

The Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, and the Finance Minister were also listed as defendants in the matter. Nandlall appeared before the Chief Justice along with Senior Counsel, Ashton Chase, on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

CAUSE FOR ACTION
Speaking to the media yesterday shortly after the hearing in Chang’s Chambers, Williams stated that the challenge aims to stop the spending by Government on projects that were not approved during the consideration of the 2014 Budget.
He said that the issue, which the Leader of the Opposition is asking the Chief Justice to consider, is the constitutionality of the Government seeking approval for spending under Statement of Excess for programmes disallowed in the National Budget.
He argues that the Statement of Excess is for projects that were unforeseen or urgent, as in the case of a catastrophe.
Williams contended that these projects were neither unforeseen nor urgent, but were planned projects for which spending was not approved.
According to him, the challenge was made at this time as the Parliament is prorogued, taking away any scrutiny of the Government’s spending from the Opposition.
Granger, in his application, is seeking a declaration that the expenditures were “unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void, unreasonable and in breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers.”
Granger’s application is set to be defended by Senior Counsel Rex McKay and Attorneys-at-Law Basil Williams, Hewley Griffith, Lawrence Harris, Michael Somersaul, Joseph Harmon, James Bond, Lewellyn John and Bettina Glasford.

EVIDENCE WILL BE PRODUCED
Despite the expressed contentions of Granger and his representatives, the Attorney-General told the Guyana Chronicle that evidence will be produced to prove that these are without merit.
“I will produce in court copies of these statements of excesses, as well as resolutions which would clearly demonstrate the Opposition’s support of these Statements of Excesses,” he said.
Nandlall questioned, “If it was not wrong and unlawful in 2012 and 2013, more so, supported by the combined Opposition for those years, how can that very act suddenly be unlawful and unconstitutional in 2014?”
According to the Attorney-General, the Minister of Finance restored monies that were cut from the Budget for the years 2012 and 2013, via Statements of Excesses, which were laid in the National Assembly and supported by the combined Opposition.
He said, “I maintain most resolutely that all monies spent by the Government of Guyana for the year 2014 were done in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Guyana, with guidance from two rulings of the Chief Justice (ag), Mr. Ian Chang, which were rendered in the budget cut case filed in 2012 – the preliminary ruling of June 2013 and the final ruling of January 2014.
In January this year, Chang ruled that the National Assembly has no right to cut the National Budget. The Chief Justice handed down his decision in the High Court on January 29. In the Preliminary Ruling given in June 2012, the CJ had ruled that the National Assembly had a role to either approve or disapprove of the National Estimate, not to cut them. An appeal of Chang’s controversial 2012 Budget cut ruling has since been filed in the name of the Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman. The Notice of Appeal of Chang’s decision was filed in February by lawyer and Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC) Khemraj Ramjattan, on behalf of the Speaker of the National Assembly. The ruling followed a move by the Government of Guyana, which had taken the Opposition to court following the slashing of the 2012 National Budget by $20.8B, claiming it was unconstitutional.
“I reject any notion that there was any illegal spending. In fact, the very action of the Finance Minister, which is now being challenged in these proceedings, received the support of Mr. Granger in 2012 and 2013,” Nandlall stressed.
He added that Article 218 (3) clearly allows for monies to be expended and for a Statement of Excess to be laid, as is outlined in the language in which the Article is crafted.
“One will observe that there is no restriction in terms of the purpose to which the monies can be used,” the Attorney General said, adding that Government is entitled to spend in the manner provided for in the Constitution, until an Appropriation Act is passed for that year and this happens every year.
To date, in the 10th Parliament, four Statements of Excess have been tabled, 58 per cent of which has been approved by the combined Opposition.
The fourth statement of Excess, Financial Paper 1/2014, was tabled in the National Assembly on June 19 and will be considered by the House at the next sitting. It reflects spending from January 1, 2014 to June 16, 2014 to the tune of $4.6B – the reason for Granger’s legal challenge.
The mater was adjourned to December 29, 2014.

extracted from the Guyana Chronicle